What's really surprising here is how little
we have come to expect from these companies who once positioned themselves
as champions of a "...more open and connected world", to cite Facebook's mission
statement. One might also wonder how these brands feel about such
repeated slights to their image. When it comes to helping or hindering human
rights across the world, does reputation still matter to the leading
social networks? Or have they, perhaps, simply grown too big to care?

Just a short decade ago, in a more innocent
phase of the internet era, United Nations
Secretary General Kofi Annan spoke of freedom as the "lifeblood"
of the information society. "Without openness, without the right to seek,
receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of
frontiers, the information revolution will stall, and the information society
we hope to build will be stillborn." he maintained.

In 2006, the year following Annan's
pronouncement, Yahoo! Microsoft and Google were embroiled in multiple
human rights scandals involving censorship
of Chinese search results. Yahoo! had gone even further by disclosing the
private emails of Chinese reporter Shi
Tao to state authorities, a move which subsequently led to his arrest.
In a 30 page
report following the incidents, Amnesty International strongly condemned
the complicity of tech companies with the repressive practices of the Chinese
government. "They have, through their actions, directly and admittedly
contradicted their values and stated policies," Amnesty declared.

Not long after, the actions of smaller
software companies working with governments to crack down on dissidents
generated fresh outrage. Here, French company Amesys was revealed as a
surveillance vendor to Gaddafi’s
Libya, while the Anglo-German company FinFisher
worked with the governments of Ethiopia, Vietnam, Bahrain and Qatar to set
up software that allowed them to spy on their own citizens. Then, to
crown ten years of plummeting public faith in the tech sector, Edward Snowden shared
the full extent of the US National Security Agency's penetration of thousands
of online user accounts across the world.

In spite of their repeat offenses, however,
there are signs that even multi-billion dollar internet brands do give a damn
about bad press and public opinion. According to public relations experts such
as Stephen Waddington, Chief Engagement Officer at Ketchum, corporate
reputation on human rights issues is important for tech giants. Waddington believes
that by virtue of their positioning, Facebook and Google both purport to work
towards a "higher purpose that is aligned with the public
good." With regards to their consumer base, whose opinion matters
deeply to these brands, he observes that: "freedom of speech is a public
expectation in democratic markets."

World markets also clearly expect and value
privacy and security. When trust in data privacy is publicly compromised, this
kind of reputation damage incurs real economic penalties. For example, when
news of the NSA's digital spying system made it clear that US-based software
companies were open books for the agency, the
Brazilian government cancelled a large contract with Microsoft over
security concerns. For Waddington, internet platforms could pay an even
greater price, should they overstep and betray the trust of their public.
"If a media or tech organisation fails to meet public expectation of the
level of service, the audience will leave. User trust and confidence is
critical to their success." he states.

Yet another sign that reputation matters to
tech giants is the extensive list of social responsibility initiatives they
have deployed in the past few years. Facebook's Zuckerberg, who has given
millions to fight Ebola, has notably rolled out Internet.org in an attempt
"... to connect the two thirds of the world that doesn’t have internet
access." Facebook has also recently put
in placea
sizeable "Social Good" department, which helps raise money
through the platform for humanitarian causes and disaster relief, among other
things.

Google, who
pulled out of China after the censorship controversy in 2010, has worked
more directly to support certain human rights efforts through its Google Ideas program, designed to
explore “how technology can enable people to confront threats in the face
of conflict, instability and repression.” Ironically or not, depending on your
level of cynicism, it funds projects such as Uproxy and The Guardian Project, which are
intended to help dissidents and reporters to evade government surveillance of
their online communications.

Human rights campaigners are still
skeptical with regards to the overall impact of such initiatives. When asked
about the value of programs such as Google Ideas, Tanya O’Carroll
from Amnesty International’s technology
and human rights team observes that “[They] just don’t meet the scale that
companies of that size can add their weight to.” Srdja Popovic, director
of the Centre for Applied
Nonviolent Action and Strategies, believes that larger companies are always
caught in a conflict of interest when it comes to supporting human rights. “The
moment they start to produce something for activists, they risk being expelled
from repressive countries,” he says of tech companies operating in
non-democratic markets.

For advocates, there is a recipe for
successful campaigns that put the screws on corporate reputation. This
certainly involves monitoring and reporting on bad practices but it also
involves mobilizing large numbers of ethically-minded users who would urge tech
brands to live up to the lofty ideals in their mission statements. To
those who believe it impossible either to mobilize internet users towards
rights activism or to spook multi-billion dollar corporations, recent victories
in the fight for "Net Neutrality", especially in the US, should
provide ample proof that such campaigns can and do work.

A wider grassroots movement in defense of
digital human rights, both our own and those of activists in closed societies,
carries with it an inherent threat to its targets. "Make it right,
make it fair or we will leave." This threat is nothing short of an
internet giant's worst nightmare. Without users, after all, their platforms are
worthless.

There is an acute and growing tension between the concern for safety and the protection of our freedoms. How do we handle this? Read more from the World Forum for Democracy partnership.

About the author

Tom Liacas looks at how
social networks can be used to exert pressure on governments and corporations.
His work is informed by his past experiences as a digital activist and social
media strategist. Find him on Twitter: @TomLiacas,
and on his blog.

This article is published under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International licence.
If you have any queries about republishing please contact us.
Please check individual images for licensing details.